Today, Yoani Sánchez, the Cuban dissident blogger of world fame, posted unbelievable news.

President Barack Obama had answered the seven questions she sent to him—questions that she said keep her awake at night wondering about the future of her country. That future, after all, is so closely intertwined with the choices made by the administrations in Washington and Havana. The full text of her questions and his answers are on her blog (here), but here’s a sample Q&A:

Question 4 (Yoani Sanchez): Raúl Castro has said publicly that he is open to discuss any topic with the U.S. provided there is mutual respect and a level playing field. Is Raúl asking too much?

Answer (Barack Obama): For years, I have said that it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, without preconditions, with friends and foes alike. I am not interested, however, in talking for the sake of talking. In the case of Cuba, such diplomacy should create opportunities to advance the interests of the United States and the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

We have already initiated a dialogue on areas of mutual concern - safe, legal, and orderly migration, and reestablishing direct mail service. These are small steps, but an important part of a process to move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new and more positive, direction. Achieving a more normal relationship, however, will require action by the Cuban government.

The Committee to Protect Journalists reports: “Sánchez, who has received several international awards and blogs regularly for the U.S.-based Huffington Post, said she was satisfied by Obama’s responses, which she described as cautious, moderate, and diplomatic. She has also sent a series of questions to Raúl Castro, but hasn’t received a response yet.”

A response from President Castro is not very likely, since the Cuban state does not tend to trust Sánchez. Just one week ago, she was detained and roughed up by Cuban security agents, who accused her of being a “counter-revolutionary.” In that context, the Castro regime might take Obama’s exchange with her as the wrong kind of signal.

Indeed, Obama’s choice to respond to Yoani Sanchez directly when he will not to speak to the Cuban government might well be received poorly by Cuban officials. But in reality, I think this was an effective tool: he spoke through a dissident that openly spread on-line his message—one that contains no malice and instead indicates willingness to engage Cuba further—and he therefore effectively communicated to the Cuban state the answers to her important questions (answers that are valuable to them, as well). And in so doing he made a tenuous connection among the three parties: alienated “dissident,” Washington and Havana.

Still, this is not necessarily how Obama’s move will be interpreted.

Called “Bastión 2009,” the exercise is meant to ensure that Cuba is optimally prepared to defend its territory—a high priority ever since the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, even during difficult economic times. The three day exercises will ring in National Defense Day on November 29.

I am reminded of a Cuban blogger Claudia Cadelo’s post of February 2009 about posters that adorn restaurants and cafes in Havana, advising Cubans (among other things) that “causing the greatest possible number of casualties on the active enemy forces is our main goal.”

As Claudia responded: “[The militaristic mindset encouraged by the Cuban government] makes me wonder if we’re at war and against whom.”

When the issue went to court, a judge initially ruled the move unconstitutional, but when they appealed, the 11th U.S. Circuit of Appeals decided that Vamos a Cuba was, indeed, such an inaccurate picture of life in Cuba that the school board could legally remove it from the shelves. And when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case on Monday, it thereby upheld this ruling.

First of all, why isn’t the answer providing more books on Cuba to children, with varied perspectives? The defense argues that Vamos a Cuba does not present one possible perspective, it presents factually inaccurate statements that would give children the wrong idea entirely about life on the island.

OK, maybe.

But then what about teaching children the value of accepting and connecting with people of all nations and cultures? This book is part of a series of 24 books introducing young readers to different countries. The point is that people everywhere have fundamental similarities: failing to mention Fidel Castro is an unrelated issue. Were the book a political statement (instead of a book teaching kids tolerance and the value of exploration and connecting with people of all origins), perhaps Miami-Dade would have a better basis for getting upset.

The press has recently alighted upon the subject of campaign funding: its origins and its direct effect on Congressional votes with respect to Cuba policy. A report released by the Washington, DC-based group called Public Campaign shows fairly straightforward timelines: lawmakers vote for easing restrictions on Cuba; those same lawmakers receive donations from a pro-embargo political action committee (PAC); the next vote sees them voting in favor of the embargo. And over the last seven years, groups supporting the embargo have made over $10.77 million in congressional campaign contributions.

Of course, as the embargo-backers in question are arguing, there are many groups that channel money to politicians who support their views. They’re being singled out unfairly.

For me, that does not clear the air. The connection between politics and money is problematic in itself (and subject for someone else’s blog, perhaps), but in this case particularly so: Cuba policy is now essentially the policy of a minority in the United States, and the fact that money is an influential part of what keeps it going is disturbing.

Public Campaign cites 18 lawmakers that changed sides on the issue following a donation from the pro-embargo PAC, including, for example, Republican Representative Sam Graves:

Graves cast seven votes between 2003 and 2005 to ease the trade embargo and other sanctions on Cuba.

Then on three subsequent Cuban trade votes, he withdrew his backing and opposed lifting the sanctions, according to the report.

Since 2004, the five-term lawmaker from Tarkio and a member of the House Agriculture Committee, has received $8,000 from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, campaign records show.

The entire Kansas City article is here. Also see the Associated Press‘ take on the issue, that of the AFP, and see the Public Campaign report itself here.

(From Reuters) A group led by the head of the United States’ biggest science organization is in Cuba this week to discuss ways to rekindle scientific cooperation as U.S.-Cuba relations slowly improve under U.S. President Barack Obama. Nobel Prize-winning scientist Peter Agre, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), told Reuters on Wednesday the group had met with government officials and Cuban scientists, all of them enthusiastic about doing science together.

The best opportunities for cooperative research appear to lie in medicine, where Cuba’s emphasis on public health and vaccine development could prove valuable to the United States, and the environment, particularly shared resources such as the Gulf of Mexico and migratory wildlife, he and delegation members said.

Can baseball help bring US and Cuba together?

(From Associated Press) “Pingpong diplomacy” thawed relations between the United States and China in 1971. Can “baseball diplomacy” help do the same for the U.S. and Cuba? Americans ranging from 12-year-old ballplayers to softballing senior citizens are visiting the communist island to engage in their own kind of field work, and there’s talk of another trip by a major league team.

Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who staged exhibition games with the Cuban national team in Havana and Baltimore a decade ago, told The Associated Press that he hopes to so again next spring. Two groups of baseball youngsters from Florida are planning to visit next year as well.

This weekend, four teams from a Massachusetts slow-pitch softball senior league will travel to Cuba for a series of games. ”It’s got to help diplomacy. Sports does that,” said Stu Gray, commissioner of the Eastern Massachusetts Senior Softball Association and head of this weekend’s delegation.

The association has designed a logo for the trip featuring U.S. and Cuban flags crossing over a softball.

Anne Louise Bardach wrote a piece on “Fidel Castro’s Long Goodbye” for the Los Angeles Times today, including a note comparing the caudillo/dictator qualities of Fidel and Francisco Franco. Her interesting comment is excerpted here:

Castro’s reluctant leave-taking—with its periodic near-finales—fits into a long tradition of Hispanic caudillos or dictators. Consider, for example, the life—and death—of Francisco Franco, Spain’s dictator of almost 40 years. Both Castro’s father and Franco hailed from the rugged northern countryside of Spain, a region renowned for its fierce and stubborn citizenry. And notwithstanding divergent political ideologies—Franco was a zealous anti-communist—the two men had a good deal in common. Both were willing to forge unpalatable and unpopular alliances with totalitarian states to shore up their power—Franco with Nazi Germany and Castro with the Soviet Union.

And Franco’s shrouded last days neatly foreshadowed Castro’s. Franco became grievously ill in 1974 and was forced to turn over his rule—”temporarily,” he insisted—to Prince Juan Carlos. Castro also initially ceded control to his brother only “temporarily.” Like Castro, Franco had an unexpected recovery, though his lasted only a year before he died at the age of 82.

Read the full article here.

Dr. Torres Cuevas is currently on an extended visit to the United States; he managed to secure a visa from the U.S. government in order to give a number of lectures—including at CUNY (the City University of New York), Hunter College, and Florida International University.

His talks and presentations will be on “Rethinking Cuban History”; “The National Library of Cuba: its structure and future plans”; and “The History of Freemasonry in Cuba.” Read about them here (CUNY), here (Hunter College), and here (FIU).

For those who can attend, the event at FIU is this Friday, November 13 at 10 AM. Here, Dr. Torres Cuevas will present on the first topic: “Repensando la Historia de Cuba: La cubanidad en el contexto de las Américas,” in the LACC Conference Room, DM 358, on Modesto A. Maidique Campus.

Meanwhile, CNN ran a piece on the U.S. representatives at the Fair. See below.

Last week potatoes and peas were dropped from the monthly ration books that Cubans depend upon as one of their main sources of food. Not having these products in the ration books means, of course, that potatoes and peas will no longer be rationed. Islanders can buy as much of them as they want, if (1) they can afford the high prices and (2) the products are on the shelves in the first place.

With this new change (and considering the shortages that have long plagued Cuban stores) some believe that those Cubans whose relatives abroad send them money will be tempted to hoard supplies and be able to buy up all the potatoes and peas before ordinary people can save the money to buy their own fair portions. That, of course, is what rationing hoped to avoid in the first place.

Previously, Cubans were entitled to buy only up to four pounds of potatoes and 10 ounces of peas a month, with the price set at about a penny per pound for potatoes and just under a penny per pound for peas. Both were available only in state-owned ration stores or on the black market. Now, official buying limits are gone, but Cubans must pay 5 cents a pound for potatoes and 17 cents a pound for peas at the same ration shops.

The relatively huge price increase will be difficult for Cubans on a $20/month salary to swallow, but the Cuban government has clearly stated its intention to move away from the ration books, or libretas, so this change is not likely to be reversed. It is at least a test before doing the same with products that are more central to the Cuban diet, like rice and beans.

See Businessweek’s piece here for more information.

House Representative Howard Berman (D-California) announced last week that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which he is chair, will hold an open hearing at 10 AM on November 18 on the topic “Is It Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?“

The 47-member Committee includes representatives that are strongly in favor of ending the ban—Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) and Barbara Lee (D-California)—as well as some that have been among the ban’s most outspoken proponents, e.g. ranking Republican member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Delahunt was the House member that introduced legislation to eliminate the travel ban back in February, and has recently made public statements asserting his confidence that the bill will garner enough votes to pass this year. Ros-Lehtinen, a fervent anti-Castro Cuban American, has led the movement in favor of maintaining current policy without change.

On this issue, Ros-Lehtinen has been recently joined by at least 53 Democrats in the House apparently on her side—a side that is traditionally associated with Republicans. These 53 representatives added their signatures to an open letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) that urged House leadership to maintain the current U.S. policy on Cuba. The letter argues, “Any legislation that would seek to ease or lift sanctions… would send a devastating message to Cuba’s opposition movement and legitimize an ailing dictatorship.”

Considering the number of Democratic signatures on this letter, opponents of the legislation to end the travel ban argue that they are the ones with the numbers in their favor. With 218 votes needed to pass the bill and 258 Democrats in the House, 53 Democrats on the side of Ros-Lehtinen mean that Democrats cannot pass the bill alone. Republicans will have to come out in higher numbers than they ever have before in favor of changing the policy.